Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Selling Amnesty

Let’s assume that President Obama and the Democrats sincerely want an immigration bill, that this is not a trick to trap Republicans into an anti-immigrant vote that will alienate Hispanic voters and secure Democratic advantage for a generation.

The Senate seems to be hospitable territory. Four Republicans — including the ascendant Marco Rubio — have joined four Democrats in embracing the politically difficult principles at the heart of the matter. Some advocates of immigration reform talk confidently of mustering 70 Senate votes, which would represent an astonishing reversal of fortunes for an issue that has long been mired in demagogy.

The House, where many Republicans fear getting creamed by Tea Party challengers in a primary next year, is more problematic. The fear is that the House will balk or will break immigration into little pieces, pass the parts that crack down on undocumented workers and kill any effort to legalize the 11 million already here.

That pessimism is natural; the House is the place where ideas go to die. But it needn’t happen this time. If President Obama and Congressional leaders play their cards right, as they are doing so far, immigration reform — real immigration reform — can clear Congress this year.

For starters, advocates won’t be using the word “amnesty.” Personally I think it’s a fine word, which has traditionally meant an act of forgiveness for the sake of social harmony. But in the meanspirited Republican/Fox News lexicon, “amnesty” has come to mean coddling criminals. So we will all talk of “a path to citizenship.”

The last major immigration law, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, legalized three million undocumented immigrants. (Reagan, by the way, was comfortable calling this “amnesty.”) But the law failed to prevent a new illegal influx, largely because business lobbied to prevent tough sanctions on employers who hired unauthorized workers. The lure of no-questions-asked jobs drew millions of new illegal immigrants, and that invasion fed a ferocious popular backlash.

This time around, Democrats should be at least as ardent about enforcement as they are about legalization of the undocumented. That is essential to winning Republican votes, but it is also the way to avoid a future cycle of anti-immigrant populism.

In truth, most of what you hear from Republicans about “securing our borders” is a red herring. That is not the real problem. Under Obama, border policing has doubled, and deportations have ballooned to 400,000 a year — with a new and prudent emphasis on deporting convicted criminals. The Migration Policy Institute reported in January that the government now spends more on immigration enforcement — nearly $18 billion a year — than on the F.B.I., the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and all the other federal law enforcement agencies combined. Partly because of stronger enforcement — but also because of lower birthrates and healthier economies south of our border — the net flow of migrants from Mexico is actually zero, or even negative, according to a recent analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center. It should be easy for Obama to endorse strong language on border protection, because he’s already doing it.

Photo

Bill KellerCredit
Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

The real weakness is internal enforcement. There is an electronic system to verify that businesses hire only workers who are legally entitled to be here, but 90 percent of employers don’t use it. Both Obama and the Senate “Gang of Eight” call for more rigorous checks on employment, including a forgery-proof, theft-proof identification system, which is overdue.

Businesses are not crazy about tougher policing of their payrolls, but they have mostly resigned themselves to the idea. And the immigration bill is certain to include some enticing compensation: for the tech sector, more visas to attract educated specialists; for the agriculture sector, an expanded program of temporary labor, which the Chamber of Commerce is negotiating with the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

As for legalization, much of the debate has raged around the question of how easy it is for the undocumented to get the sweet prize of citizenship. Simply bestowing green cards on the millions seems unfair to those who have played by the rules, and sends a bad signal to others tempted to cheat. The bill now being hatched is likely to create a short path to citizenship for children, who are here through no fault of their own, and a more arduous path for adults. Grown-ups who came here by sneaking across the border or overstaying a temporary visa will have to register, submit to a background check, pay taxes and penalties, and then wait their turn behind those who applied legally.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

Some big-hearted folks (and some Democrats hoping to get grateful Hispanics into their voter base) will argue that we should not drag out the naturalization process for 10 years. But the important thing is that the 11 million be allowed to come out of hiding. Under the status Obama calls “provisional” and the Senate gang calls “probationary,” they will be allowed to work, travel and send their kids to school without fear of deportation while they wait to apply for green cards. No federal benefits, no vote, but no sword of Damocles either. Think of it as the path to the path. This compromise is the biggest breakthrough in many years of immigration debate, and it is the key to a consensus.

As Ashley Parker pointed out in The Times, the sponsors of reform have learned important messaging lessons from their failed attempts in 2006 and 2007. They are building a consensus on principles before getting bogged down in legislative details. They are using more conciliatory language. They have brought business and labor together to work out compromises on issues like temporary workers. They have kept a hard focus on enforcement.

The good news is that the anti-immigration side has no lobbying equivalent of the National Rifle Association, no group with its hands so firmly on the throats of Congress that it can override public opinion. But the bill will face a reservoir of popular fear, resentment and misunderstanding. President Obama and the indefatigable Senator Charles Schumer will work the Democratic constituencies and rally public support, but the hard sell is up to a few key Republicans who understand that this is their party’s best hope of redemption with the surging Latino electorate.

So far the most effective antidote to right-wing opposition has been Senator Rubio. In the days after the Gang of Eight unveiled its proposal the Floridian made the rounds of the shouting heads on the conservative media circuit, arguing the case. By the time Rubio was done, Rush Limbaugh was unconvinced but muted, and Sean Hannity, who announced after the November election that he had “evolved” on the issue, was calling it “the most thoughtful proposal that I’ve heard.” Karl Rove, another Fox talker, who tried unsuccessfully to sell immigration reform when he was President George W. Bush’s right arm, called the Senate principles “a huge step forward.” Fox pundits, perhaps mindful that their owner, Rupert Murdoch, recently came out for a path to citizenship, have avoided using the A-word to describe the latest proposals.

Rubio could bolster the case for legalizing undocumented immigrants by making more of the economics. My conservative colleague David Brooks has spelled out the rosiest economic case for increased immigration, including legalization of the undocumented. I would add a point made by Gordon Hanson, who studies immigration economics at the University of California, San Diego. Hanson points out that giving the 11 million undocumented immigrants provisional legal status would greatly improve the odds that their children would become educated, productive, taxpaying members of society rather than drains on the economy.

Supporters of reform are moving with unusual speed, hoping to build up momentum that will carry over to the House. They aim to get a bill through the Senate this summer, leaving much of 2013 for the House to act before representatives are completely immersed in midterm electoral politics.

The most important tactical decision, though, is in the hands of Speaker John Boehner. One reason the House is such a tar pit is that Boehner refuses to bring controversial bills to a vote unless he first has the approval of his Republican caucus — a majority of the majority. In the recent fiscal showdown, Boehner lowered that barricade and let the bill pass with just a minority of his own party joining in. He has every reason to do it again on immigration. Boehner has read the election results — a two-to-one Latino vote for Obama — and he knows that if the House Republicans smother this effort, they will pay a high price.

I’m pretty sure that is not Obama’s intent. But it is his best leverage.